Perhaps believed by those who aren't familiar with what actually took place.
Could you show us when this took place?
Because Misskelley had already given his own attorneys a taped confession days before this meeting ever happened - days before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him.
Yes, I suppose threatening to have your client dragged away in handcuffs to prevent him from giving a statement could be considered "strongly advised".
Rather drastic measures, don't you think?
It's almost as though there is no merit to the argument that Jessie is of lower intelligence and fits the profile of someone who could be easily influenced or led.
You are more than a little confused.
Misskelley was taken to Joe Calvin's office, who was not a party to this case.
And he was taken there at his attorney's request.
I can show you if you like?
Can you show us where Misskelley ever made this claim?
I'll give you a hint - it's in none of his statements, and he denied it under oath.
You seem to keep ignoring the fact that Misskelley gave his own attorneys a taped statement before the Prosecution had ever spoken to him.
I suspect that's because you really don't know much about it.
Here, This might clear some things up for you:
http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/prefeb22.html
The reality here isn't all that complicated.
Stidham knew his client was guilty because his client consistently told him so, yet he convinced Misskelley he could beat the case with Ofshe.
When he failed, he did everything in his power to prevent the public from learning this.
I think Stidham's partner Crow summed it up best:
At one point Mr. Stidham did call your Honor, and I think at the point where he asked that -- told the Court that Jessie Misskelley needed a psychiatric evaluation, Mr. Crow, who was sitting next to me at that time, made the comment that someone in the room needed a psychiatric evaluation but he wasn't sure that it was Jessie Misskelley
Yeah, that's correct. And then he said this from the same link:
And at that point I was -- since other things had developed in talking with Mr. Misskelley over the weekend, I had concerns because in every conversation I have had with him he indicates insistently that he was present, he did observe these things and he does want to testify and can't understand why his attorney
are not interested in that.